Peaceful Coexistence

Leninist Principle of Peaceful Coexistence

The principle of peaceful coexistence of states with different social systems was propounded and comprehensively substantiated by Lenin. At the 2nd Congress of Soviets, convened a few hours after Soviet rule was established, he declared: “We reject all clauses on plunder and violence, but we shall welcome all clauses containing provisions for good-neighbourly relations and all economic agreements; we cannot reject these.” [140•**

He profoundly believed that sooner or later socialism would triumph throughout the world. But this victory, he wrote, could not be achieved at one and the same time in all countries. Depending on their economic level, the acuteness of the class struggle, the balance of forces between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie and other factors, some countries would attain socialism sooner than others. For a certain period, in addition to socialist states, there would be capitalist countries. Lenin was a partisan of peaceful coexistence, and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Soviet Government have always been guided by this principle in their foreign policy.

The peaceful coexistence of socialist and capitalist countries is an objective necessity of human development. Today when countries possess weapons of mass annihilation and means of delivering them to any part of the world, when a world war would involve colossal sacrifice and destruction, war and peace have become one of the central problems. The task of all peace-loving forces is to avert a thermonuclear war, to prevent it from breaking out.

Peaceful coexistence presupposes the renunciation of war as a means of settling outstanding issues between nations, the settlement of these issues by negotiation; equality, understanding and trust between countries with due account for each other’s interests; non-interference in internal affairs; the recognition of the right of every nation to resolve its own problems independently; punctilious respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries; the promotion of economic and cultural co-operation founded on complete equality and reciprocal benefit. The Communist Party of the Soviet Union and all other Marxist parties devote much of their attention and energy to these tasks.

The peaceful coexistence policy is founded on a sober, scientific analysis of the driving forces behind the development of contemporary society. General, world-wide economic relations are stronger than the desire, will and decisions of any hostile government or class. That is what compels them to have peaceful relations with the socialist countries. As for the nations building socialism, peace is a vital need. In socialist society the economic foundation of wars—private ownership—has been abolished and none of the social forces in it are interested in wars, plunder or the enslavement of other nations and states. Socialism implies the building of the new, and it is impossible to build and create without struggling for peace, against war. Peace and socialism are therefore inseparable. The struggle for peace is a struggle for socialism, and the achievements of socialism, in their turn, strengthen peace and peaceful coexistence.

The main concern of socialist society is to promote man’s welfare, to satisfy his material and cultural requirements as fully as possible, to provide him with facilities for spiritual and physical development. This activity may be pursued only when there is peace. For Soviet people every day of peace is a day of creative labour and heroic feats, bringing their country many tons of metal and fuel, grain and milk, many metres of fabrics and many pairs of footwear, and new schools and hospitals. Every day of peace sees the nuclear-powered ice-breaker cutting through unexplored expanses, spaceships hurtling through outer space, the birth of thousands of new citizens and the building of thousands of new homes.

The Marxist parties consistently adhere to their policy of peaceful coexistence in the knowledge that there are mighty forces capable of defending peace. These forces are:

Firstly, the world socialist system whose economic and military might is growing steadily; this system has now become the centre of attraction for all peace-loving forces in the world.

Secondly, a large group of peace-loving non-socialist countries, most of which are countries newly liberated from colonial rule; a growing number of countries are seeking to avert the threat harboured by participation in military blocs and pursue a policy of non-alignment.

Thirdly, the international working class, which is struggling for socialism and social progress against imperialism and its policy of aggression.

Fourthly, the world-wide anti-war movement which is growing ever more active in deciding the problem of war and peace.

The existence of these influential peace-loving forces has enabled the C.P.S.U. and other Marxist parties to suggest the theory that today mankind is in a position to renounce war as a means of settling international issues. The Programme of the C.P.S.U. states: “It is possible to avert a world war by the combined efforts of the mighty socialist camp, the peace-loving non-socialist countries, the international working class and all the forces championing peace.”

The fact that the peace-loving forces can avert another world war does not mean that the possibility of war breaking out is completely ruled out. This possibility will remain as long as capitalism exists. Lasting peace will be established only by communism. Today the persevering and consistent struggle of the Soviet Union and other socialist countries and all other progressive forces for world peace and security is violently resisted by the forces of aggression headed by the U.S. military, who make every effort to aggravate the international situation, openly threaten the U.S.S.R. and other socialist countries, intensify the arms race and do not stop short of armed aggression. In face of the threat of another world war, the Soviet Union is forced to take steps to strengthen its defences in order to protect itself and the entire socialist community.

Peaceful coexistence does not imply the relinquishment of armed struggle in the event the imperialists violate peace by force of arms in an attempt to impose their rule on one nation or another. Coexistence is inapplicable to relations between oppressors and the oppressed, between the colonialists and the victims of colonial exploitation. Every nation has the sacred right of defending its independence and freedom, of fighting aggression or imperialist oppression.

The imperialists have not given up their predatory plans and this means that the peaceful coexistence of countries with different social systems can be ensured only through the dedicated struggle of all nations against the aggressive aspirations of the imperialists.

The Communist and Workers’ Parties are in the forefront of this struggle. They expose all the manipulations and intrigues of the imperialists, keep the peoples vigilant and firmly and consistently implement the Leninist line of peaceful coexistence.

* * *

The Class Struggle and Peaceful Coexistence

Sometimes one hears people say that peaceful coexistence means the reconciliation of the antagonisms between socialism and capitalism, between labour and capital, and the rejection of the class struggle and the socialist revolution.

While championing peace and friendship, Communists energetically promote the revolutionary and national liberation struggle. The revolutionary and national liberation struggle cannot be counterposed to the struggle for peace. All forms of struggle are interrelated.

Peaceful coexistence does not smooth over the antagonisms between socialism and capitalism, nor does it rule out the class struggle. Marxists-Leninists have always championed the class struggle, the struggle of the proletariat and all working people against the bourgeoisie, holding that only the class struggle and the socialist revolution, which is the highest form of this struggle, are the means of destroying capitalism and establishing the new, socialist society. They have no doubt whatever that peaceful coexistence facilitates the struggle of the international working class against the bourgeoisie, furthers the world socialist revolution and helps mankind to accomplish the transition from capitalism to socialism. The Statement of the 1960 Meeting of Communist and Workers’ Parties declares: “The coexistence of states with different social systems is a form of class struggle between socialism and capitalism.”

One of the most acute antagonisms of capitalism is that between labour and capital, and it manifests itself in a class struggle, in a struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. This struggle has traversed the long and arduous road from scattered and unorganised actions by small groups of workers at the dawn of the socialist movement to action on an international scale. Moreover, with the formation of the world socialist system it has become a struggle between the capitalist and socialist systems and embraces all spheres of human activity—economic, political and ideological.

The struggle between the two systems centres round the peaceful economic competition between capitalism and socialism on a world-wide scale. This is a competition for the highest rates and scale of industrial and cultural development. As this struggle proceeds it shows all nations that socialism is capable of satisfying people’s material and cultural requirements more and more fully and wins them over to the cause of the new society.

Under peaceful coexistence the political struggle between the two systems is expressed in the all-out support of the socialist countries of all forms of struggle for social and national liberation, for democracy and socialism. It clears the way for the struggle of the working people of the capitalist countries against exploitation. This is shown by the scale of the strike movement in the capitalist countries and by the growth of the international communist and working class movement.

Peaceful coexistence sustains the national liberation struggle. Under conditions of peace many Asian and African countries have won liberation from colonial dependence, the people’s revolution triumphed in Cuba, and the liberated peoples acquired the possibility of expediting their national rejuvenation and advancing along the non-capitalist road of development.

In the same proportion that peaceful coexistence creates favourable soil for the class struggle in the capitalist countries and for the national liberation movement in colonial and dependent countries, the gains of the class struggle and the national liberation movement help to consolidate peaceful coexistence.

The Ideological Struggle and Peaceful Coexistence

Peaceful coexistence does not spread to ideology because the ideology of communism cannot be reconciled with that of capitalism. The former is the ideology of the proletariat, of the working people, and its purpose is to show that the triumph of socialism and communism is inevitable, indicate the ways and means of achieving this triumph, reveal the essence of the new society and demonstrate its advantages and potentialities. For its part bourgeois ideology strives to prove that private ownership and exploitation are perpetual and immutable.

In spite of what bourgeois ideologists say, the ideological struggle is no invention of the Communists. It has been waged ever since the birth of private ownership and classes, and will be waged as long as antagonistic classes exist.146

Socialism is gaining the upper hand against capitalism, and the clash between communist and bourgeois ideology mirrors this struggle in people’s minds.

Communists firmly believe that their ideology will ultimately triumph, for the course of present-day developments demonstrates its strength and vitality.

The attractive force of communist ideas in all parts of our planet is due to the fact that they conform with the requirements of mankind’s development and with the most urgent interests of people. This is now admitted even by non-Marxists. “Marxism,” writes the noted French philosopher and author Jean-Paul Sartre, “is the only ideology that fits in with our times and with the development of present-day history.” This upsets the assertions of imperialist ideologists that communist ideas are instilled from without.

In the capitalist world one frequently hears that the opposing ideologies should be reconciled and the ideological struggle stopped. The argument of these “peace-makers” is that since countries with different social systems can coexist peacefully, this coexistence could be spread to the ideological sphere as well. From their point of view the ideological struggle is incompatible with peaceful coexistence and therefore it should be cut short.

In reality, however, the ideological struggle does not in any way clash with peaceful coexistence. The peaceful relations between the Soviet Union and Finland, Afghanistan, India and other capitalist countries, founded on mutual respect and friendship, eloquently demonstrate that ideological differences are no hindrance to peace and peaceful coexistence.

Peaceful coexistence is the most profoundly humane and the most reasonable principle of relations between countries. Communists regard the defence of this principle against the adversaries of peace and peaceful coexistence, against the advocates of the cold war and international tension as one of their most pressing tasks.

The attempts to halt the ideological struggle are doomed to failure. There can be no peace between communist and bourgeois ideas in the same way as there can be no peace between the classes whose interests are mirrored by these ideas. For Communists peace in the ideological sphere 147would amount to renunciation of the basic principles of Marxism-Leninism, of the fundamental interests of the proletariat and all working people. This is absolutely inconceivable. Neither are the bourgeois ideologists, despite their talk about ideological peace, inclined to give up their ideological principles. This is seen from their efforts to obstruct the spread of communist ideas and counteract the influence of these ideas over the masses. Their appeals for ideological peace should, therefore, not be taken seriously. They are really appeals for capitulation to their own ideology, to which Marxists, naturally, will never agree.

Another reason why any attempt to hinder the ideological struggle, let alone halt it, is pointless is that ideas influence people in their own way and there are laws governing their dissemination. State frontiers do not exist for them and they are not deterred by military bases or nuclear submarines. If they are sincere and fit in with the vital interests of people they imperceptibly capture their minds and hearts.

The ideological struggle has nothing in common with “psychological warfare”, whose purpose is to stir people’s emotions, to awaken ugly feelings of desperation, fear, egoism, distrust and hatred. The proponents of “ psychological warfare" concentrate on intimidating people with the imaginary threat of attack by socialist countries and fanning military psychosis and nuclear hysteria. The ideological struggle, on the other hand, implies explanation and persuasion, an appeal to human intelligence. This appeal must be free of twisted facts, of distortions of the adversary’s policies and objectives, of slander and mutual calumny, of the fanning of pernicious aspirations, passions and emotions. This is a struggle for the minds and hearts of people, a struggle without the use of any force at all, let alone arms. For this struggle there is no need either for an arms race or for tension between states.

The ideological struggle fully harmonises with peaceful coexistence and does not hinder the economic competition between socialist and capitalist countries or scientific and technical exchanges and cultural relations between them. Firmly convinced of the advantages of the socialist system and of its ultimate triumph, Communists do not conceal their shortcomings, which they persevere in rectifying. They support the ideological struggle, for they believe in the righteousness of their cause, of their ideological principles.

Notes

[140•**] Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 26, p. 255.